Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 20:37:18 -0400 (EDT)
From: Richard A Nelson <cowboy@vnet.ibm.com>
To: Con Kolivas <kernel@kolivas.org>
cc: linux kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Re: Blender profiling-1 O16.2int
In-Reply-To: <200308191028.11109.kernel@kolivas.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.56.0308182032320.23352@onpx40.onqynaqf.bet>
References: <20030817003128.04855aed.voluspa@comhem.se>
 <200308172336.42593.kernel@kolivas.org> <3F416BD4.3040302@sbcglobal.net>
 <200308191028.11109.kernel@kolivas.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1359
Lines: 30

On Tue, 19 Aug 2003, Con Kolivas wrote:

> > Is there a way to figure out when a process is spinning on a wait and
>
> That's the trick isn't it? No there isn't or else I'd fix it in a jiffy. If
> someone can think of a way I'd love to know.

Have you considered instrumenting waits/locks ? I had to do that for a
schedular/locks/events (not Linux based), by extending the structures
to include current ownership and waiters...  At a problem point, you'd
then have to use something like sysreq to trigger a scan of the relevant
data areas.  I had to cause an error and do a postmortem via paper dump
:(

-- 
Rick Nelson
> : Any porters out there should feel happier knowing that DEC is shipping
> : me an AlphaPC that I intend to try getting linux running on: this will
> : definitely help flush out some of the most flagrant unportable stuff.
> : The Alpha is much more different from the i386 than the 68k stuff is, so
> : it's likely to get most of the stuff fixed.
>
> It's posts like this that almost convince us non-believers that there
> really is a god.
	-- Anthony Lovell, to Linus's remarks about porting
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/